|
REGULAR MEETINGMARCH 14, 2005
<br />Jan Slaby, 1207 Riverside Drive, South Bend, Indiana, stated that she has spent 34 years
<br />in restoring her home and highly praised the Historic Preservation Commission for their
<br />help over the years. She requested favorable consideration of this bill.
<br />Bob Yapp, 729 Cottage Grove Avenue, South Bend, Indiana, stated that he has traveled
<br />all over the country and visiting and working with many historic neighborhoods since the
<br />age of seventeen (17). He stated that the Historic Preservation Commission of St. Joseph
<br />County and the Chapin Park Neighborhood Association are one of the finest around.
<br />Charles Simon, President, Board of Trustees, Temple Beth El, residing at 1204 Honan
<br />Drive, stated that Temple Beth El has accepted the modified guidelines in this bill. Mr.
<br />Simon urged the Council’s favorable recommendation for this bill.
<br />Todd Zeiger, Historic Landmarks, 402 W. Washington, South Bend, Indiana, spoke in
<br />favor of this bill. Mr. Zeiger stated that this bill provides three necessary points, first
<br />being a design tool, second, limiting non-contributing dwellings, and third, allows
<br />different types of styles. This allows a balance of options to be used to maintain the
<br />integrity of the neighborhood.
<br />The following individuals spoke in opposition to this bill.
<br />Sharon Schierling, 625 N. Lafayette Blvd, South Bend, Indiana, read her letter dated
<br />February 12, 2005 and addressed to the Area Plan Commission of St. Joseph County.
<br />The local historic district (LHD) proposal was drafted by the neighborhood association
<br />board, a small group of well-meaning and like-minded activists who were elected by a
<br />very small number of property owners in the proposed district. Moreover, when they
<br />were elected, it was never stated that they would thus have authority to propose
<br />legislation that would alter property rights in the neighborhood. Rather than delegating
<br />such authority, many of us (wrongly) assumed that they would merely continue to
<br />organize “various aesthetic improvements and social activities for its residents,” (quoted
<br />from their website) such as historic streetlights, Christmas decorations, alley cleanup,
<br />garden walk, art fair booth, holiday parties, and the like. The meetings they called to
<br />discuss the possibility of creating a historic district were, by their own admission, very
<br />poorly attended. While this might suggest that there was very little interest in the idea,
<br />they took it to indicate tacit approval and proceeded to draft “Guideline” for the proposed
<br />district in collaboration with the HPC. As soon as the proposed “Guideline” were
<br />distributed to residents, it became clear that this was a very divisive issue and that the
<br />support of the property owners could not be assumed. Opponents of the LHD who
<br />objected to enacting restrictions on their property, were told that the time for
<br />neighborhood input has passed, except in the form of very specific wording changes to
<br />the “Guidelines.” Many questions have been raised about the “Guideline” that have not
<br />been answered and even LHD supporters have pointed out contradictions and ambiguities
<br />that need clarification. The guidelines have supposedly been revised to correct the flaws
<br />but the revised version has not been distributed to residents. Despite numerous calls from
<br />both LHD supporters and opponents for a referendum straw poll, or canvassing of the
<br />neighborhood to determine whether the majority of those affected support the proposal,
<br />the board has refused to do so. I’m usually quite content to let other people who care
<br />about such things make all the decisions they want about Christmas decorations,
<br />neighborhood social events and the like. The issue, however, I care about very much
<br />because if affects my property rights. And since it does affect property rights, I expect a
<br />more rigorous process to obtain the consent of the property holders. I do not think that’s
<br />too much to expect. One issue that particularly concerns me is the boundaries for the
<br />proposed LHD. While there are houses on Park and Forest Avenues that truly have
<br />historic significance, this is not the case for some of the streets on the periphery of the
<br />proposed district, including my own street, Lafayette Boulevard. My street more closely
<br />resembles a mixed-use urban area than a historic neighborhood.The “neighbors” on my
<br />side of Lafayette Boulevard include the Leeper Park tennis courts, the parking lot for
<br />Madison School, a vacant lot that until recently was occupied by a dilapidated apartment
<br />building that was recently demolished, two offices, and a synagogue. Directly across the
<br />street from me is Memorial Hospital’s multi-story parking garage with a heliport on top.
<br />A large percentage of the houses on my side of the street are rental properties., which like
<br />10
<br />
<br />
|